The recent encouraging news of the arrest in Germany of two of Rwanda’s suspected criminals, Ignace Murwanashyaka and Straton Musoni, overshadowed the latest development in the appeal chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). On November 16, the tribunal reversed a 20 year prison sentence and ordered the immediate release of Protais Zigiranyirazo (“Mr. Z”). Based on a finding of ‘serious errors’ in the first chamber’s handling of the defendant’s alibi, the decision immediately sparked a wave of protest and consternation in Rwanda and the Rwandan diaspora.
The release of a suspected war criminal will not create much disturbance in a country where convicted killers live side by side with their victims’ relatives. The community-based gacaca, a local justice mechanism, have tried hundreds of thousands cases. They have also allowed the release of thousands of perpetrators under a plea-bargaining scheme.
But Mr. Z is not your usual genocide suspect. He is largely considered one of its masterminds. Many feared him too much to pronounce his full name, for Mr. Z is the brother of Agathe Kanziga, wife of the former Rwandan president Juvénal Habyarimana.
Zigiranyirazo’s reputation as a radical extremist went beyond Rwanda’s borders. In 1993, he was expelled from the Université de Québec à Montréal – and then from Canada altogether – after being convicted of uttering death threats against Tutsi refugees in Montreal. He moved back to Rwanda, where he was already known as the head of the ‘Akazu’, an informal but powerful organization revolving around the former president’s wife, who controlled the ominous ‘Zero Network’ death squads.
The existence and sinister agenda of the ‘Zero Network’ death squads were revealed as early as 1992 in the Rwandan press and confirmed in various local and international fora throughout the years that led to the genocide. General Roméo Dallaire, the UN peacekeeping commander, sent a now-famous report to New York in January 1994 based on the very detailed information and warnings provided by Jean Pierre, one of several defectors of the ‘Zero Network’. Everything Dallaire’s informant told him became reality three months later, and close to a million human beings were slaughtered. Like all other defectors, Jean Pierre had mentioned ‘Mr. Z’ as one of the key actors in the preparations.
Today, Mr ‘Z’ is a free man. The Trial Chamber, because of serious procedural errors, had led to a finding that he is not guilty. The memories of thousands of Rwandans of the vicious anti-Tutsi roadblocks he had established in direct proximity of all his residences in Kigali and Gisenyi weigh little or nothing to the court.
It is useful to remember that the ICTR was established by the UN Security Council Resolution 955 with the dual objectives of accountability and deterrence on the one hand and reconciliation and peace on the other hand. In the words of Richard Goldstone, the Tribunal’s first prosecutor, the ICTR trial process is “an important means of promoting peace and reconciliation in Rwanda, providing catharsis to survivors.”
By clearing Protais Zigiranyirazo of any culpability, the appeal chamber arguably followed international standards of justice. The consequence of that decision, however, is not a simple mistrial. It is the acquittal of a man whose acts, though not properly documented by a prosecutor, are not easily forgotten in a country where genocide was committed in broad daylight.
How much consideration was given to the assessment of the impact on peace and reconciliation that the Tribunal is meant to serve? How locally relevant are the decisions of a transitional judicial body that applies rules and processes developed to address fundamentally different realities than that of a genocide? Most importantly, what are the implications of Mr. Z’s release for the very concept of Genocide Planning?
No planning = No genocide?
‘Mr. Z’ was reportedly still stunned by the appeal chamber’s decision when a news release co-signed by his lead defense attorney, Jean Philpot, celebrated the rejection, for the second time, of the charge againt him of genocide planning. The press release also calls for “the ICTR trials to be halted, ICTR convictions to be reviewed by an independent UN Commission, and the conditional release of detainees”.
Interestingly enough, Jean Philpot is the brother of no other than Robin Philpot, the Canadian politician who, in 2007, attracted intense media attention for repeatedly denying the 1994 genocide of the Tutsis.
For Jean Philpot, Peter Erlinder and others, the concept is quite simple: no planning = no intent = no genocide.
But the genocide deniers’ campaign goes beyond the ICTR trials. A small but very active group of academics, often with ties of some kind to the ICTR defense lawyers, does not miss an opportunity to propagate their revisionist views. In the words of Professor Gerald Caplan: “the deniers’ reach and influence has been spreading, metastasizing like a malignant cancer, thanks to the anarchy of the blogosphere and to the embrace of the deniers’ arguments by a small but influential number of left-wing, anti-American journals and websites. Google Rwanda and you will quite likely get a deniers’ rant featuring the tiny band of usual suspects.…”
Similarly, Oxford University’s Phil Clarck worries about the increasing influence of deniers in the form of “scholars pursuing the latest academic fads that revel in ‘alternative narratives’, no matter how spurious or morally questionable; ‘génocidaires’ seeking to deflect attention from their crimes; and critics of the current Rwandan government who try to connect alleged RPF crimes to unrelated concerns with its current policies.”
41 comments
If there was any remaining doubt about what this is all about, Christopher makes it crystal clear: the victims are the killers.I have to agree with you on one thing: "Time will tell, sooner or later the truth will come out".In the meantime, I will just ask you to keep one thing in mind; there is much more to these issues than some interesting theories to explore, some spectacular stories to tell. This is about real human beings. This is about life and death. This is about determining whether Rwandan children who were born after 1994 will have to go through what their parents went through.
Is there any jury at the ICTR trials?
Does the Court investigate?
Any evidence about the court (???) being prevented from investigating
You apparently know who are the executors (???) of the Genocide. (Aren't those usually referred to as suspects or alleged 'perpetrators' until proven guilty?)Forgive these absurd questions from a Rwandan lawyer.
As suggested in Prof Caplan's quote: the 'anarchy of the blogoshpere/internet' is exploited to throw everything but the kitchen sink.
The concept is to have some portion of this avalanche of distortions and inaccuracies somehow stick in the reader's mind. All the following statements are demonstrably inaccurate, but with enough persistence, some may end up believing them."- RPF soldiers up to date have killed more Rwandans than the number of Rwandans killed by the Interahamwe militia
- for 15 years no one RPF member has been charged for war crimes
-Late Aloys Ngurumbe becomes, all of a sudden, an INYENZI leader who would have had the powers to coin a name for the movementI would agree with Prof Caplan in seeing this as a 'malignant cancer' if I was not convinced that a project built on such massive and systematic lies could only end up collapsing on its own flawed foundations.
1) Concerning Mugesera and the 1992 Kabaya speech, please read the Jugement of the Canadian supreme court. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2005/2005scc40/2005scc40.htmll
In 2005, after years of play in the Canadian court system, the Canadian top court dismissed Mugesera's claims he was misquoted out of context. In the light of its historical, cultural and linguistic context. the Supreme Court of Canada held that Mugesera’s speech did constitute direct incitement to commit genocide. The Court went so far as to find that Mugesera’s hate speech was a crime against humanity.2) True! « Moderate Hutus » were targeted, and nobody can deny the fact that Mrs Uwingiliyimana was assassinated for her political opinions. She shall be always remembered.
Read also the following UN report A/49/508, S/1994/1157, released on 13 October 1994. The related document is in french tough and clearly makes a difference between the Tutsi genocide and the Hutu assassinations,« De l'avis du Rapporteur spécial, la qualification de génocide doit être d'ores et déjà retenue en ce qui concerne les Tutsis. Il en va différemment de l'assassinat des Hutus. (…)une distinction s'impose à ce stade. D'une part, il y a les Hutus modérés, auxquels, par extension, on associe certains étrangers tels que les Belges, et qui comprennent essentiellement les opposants politiques et les militants des droits de l'homme. (…) Ces actes constituent des assassinats et plus spécifiquement des assassinats politiques qui portent atteinte au droit à la vie, qui est un droit fondamental contenu dans nombre d'instruments internationaux. »In addition to the above mentionned clarifications, the last sentence extracted from Wihogora's last post refered to the very nature of the crime perpetrated in 1994 against the rwandan TUTSI: GENOCIDE.As of the Mugesera 1992 hate speech, this is not a matter of opinion. These are both legal and historical facts. Don't mislead the readers!
Please read the article "The Acronym IN.YE.NZI: A Symbol of Bravery" to learn about the origin of such a terminology (http://backtomyroots.wordpress.com/2008/12/13/the-acronym-inyenzi-a-symbol-of-bravery/).The acronym “IN.YE.NZI”, not to be confused with the Rwandan word “Inyenzi” which translates into cockroaches in English, was coined by a Tutsi rebel named Aloys Ngurumbe back in the early 1960s. In two separate interviews, one with Rangira and Kalinganire from the Rwandan Newspaper KANGUKA No 52 (one of the Rwandan pro-RPF Newspapers in the 1990s), published on February 12th, 1992 and another one with the BBC on November 8th, 2003, Aloys Ngurumbe proudly explained that IN.YE.NZI is an acronym of the following words: ‘INgangurarugo yiYemeje kuba ingeNzi”. These two interviews can be accessed online at Rwanda Development Gateway and Inshuti websites.Originally, the acronym IN.YE.NZI, and by extension the word Inyenzi, had a positive connotation to do with the tactic used by this rebel movement. Ingangurarugo was an army division under Kigeli Rwabugili, a Tutsi King who ruled Rwanda at the end of the 19th century. Hence, the acronym IN.YE.NZI means a member of Ingangurarugo who has committed himself to bravery.Etymologically, the word ingangurarugo comes from “kugangura urugo rw’ibwami” or “to provoke trouble at the king’s court.” When Rwabugili was still a child, he and his friends attacked Rwogera’s (his father) court and took away his cattle. More broadly then, ingangurarugo then means troublemakers. Aloys Ngurumbe clearly stated that his comrades chose this label for the guerrilla movement. It was not chosen by the extremist Hutus to whom it is now attributed in many writings on the Rwandan genocide of 1994.In a recent interview with James Munyaneza from the Kigali New Times (Rwanda’s First Daily Newspaper), David Munyurangabo, a former member of the IN.YE.NZI rebel movement and therefore Ngurumbe’s comrade, confirmed the above information in these words: “My participation [in the Rwanda’s liberation] falls in the category of Rwandans who had been expelled from their country. I was part of Ingangurarugo [yiyemeje kuba Ingenzi] a rebel group formed shortly after the 1959 Tutsi expulsion from Rwanda, which then the Rwandan authorities nicknamed Inyenzi (Cockroaches)”.2) In Rwanda, in 1994, the targets where innocent people (from babies in their mothers’ wombs to old men), tortured to death, raped and killed for what they were: TUTSI. Where do you put the so called Hutu moderates that used to also be included among the victims of the Rwandan genocide? Was Agathe Uwilingiyimana, also targeted because she was Tutsi. Was she mistakenly took as Tutsi? The answer is no. How do you explain the fact that last year the Article 14 of the Rwandan Constitution was changed to include that from now on it will refer to the Rwandan genocide as a genocide committed against the Tutsi from October 1st 1990 to December 31st 1994? And you still dare to mentione the official 100 days we all kow span from April 6, 1994 (Habyarimana's assassination) to July 4, 1994 (RPF's take over)!!
It is extremely difficult if not impossible for the ICTR to prove the conspiracy for those who are pleading non-guilty of Genocide. The case of Kambanda is unique because he pleaded guilty of all the crimes. Then after his trial, the ICTR detainees agreed on a defense strategy of pleading non guilty. In that context, condemning any of them for “conspiracy” is almost impossible as many cases are related. Vicious circle!
Nevertheless, as a reminder, allow me to quote the REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO THE ACTIONS OF THE UNITED NATIONS DURING THE 1994 GENOCIDE IN RWANDA: S/1999/1257
"The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide lays down the criteria for what acts are to be considered a genocide, one of the most heinous crimes which can be committed against a human population. Essentially, the Convention requires both that certain acts have been committed, and that they be done with a particular intent: that of destroying, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such. The Security Council used the same criteria in outlining the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), contained in resolution 955 (1994). The ICTR has determined that the mass killings of Tutsi in Rwanda in 1994 constituted genocide. It was a genocide planned and incited by Hutu extremists against the Tutsi."This is clear enough.The Genocide denial is an ongoing issue that Tutsi survivors will have to face for their lifetime, and Rwanda for generations (that what ‘s the history of the Holocaust teaches us)With the creation of the ICTR, there has been a « near universal » agreement that the 94 Tutsi genocide in Rwanda occurred. Hence, one of the most common types of genocide denial is through the minimization of its scale (ie when you write « acts of genocide » where more than a million Tutsi were killed with a 100 days !) , and a particularly perverse speech that demonizes the RPF and Paul Kagame. The objective is to create confusion and skepticism about the UNQUESTIONABLE nature of the crime of Genocide. In Rwanda, in 1994, the targets where innocent people (from babies in their mothers’ wombs to old men), tortured to death, raped and killed for what they were: TUTSI.
[....It is my strong belief that the (RPF) prosecution of cases of crimes committed by its members have a potentially greater impact on national reconciliation if conducted effectively and in accordance with fair trial procedures by the Rwandan authorities themselves. The decision whether to indict will be based solely on the availability of credible evidence and on the law and not on extraneous considerations or feelings of maintaining "balancing acts" by indicting "all sides" to the Rwandan armed conflict."==Patrick].Do you also believe that the RPF regime has the moral authority and the willingness to prosecute criminals that are in its ranks?
It's been more than fiteen years that the RPF took power in Rwanda and no one RPF member has been charged for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Rwanda before during and after the genocide by RPF soldiers. Culprits responsible for reprisal killings in Rwanda and the massacres of thousands of Rwandan refugees (including children, women, elderly) although well documented by reliable sources have gone unprosecuted up to date.
Rwandan and probably RPF member, you may know that RPF soldiers up to date have killed more Rwandans than the number of Rwandans killed by the Interahamwe militia.
Their souls are constantly crying for justice. And It is not Kagame who will render such fair justice.
@Guillaume Murere: sorry about your small 'spelling mistake'( RPF instead of FDLR). Nice knowing you.
“ Denial is the eighth stage that always follows a genocide. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. The perpetrators of genocide (and deniers) dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims."
The article gives a few examples. There are many more all over the internet. Try well known individuals such as Christian Davenport or Michael Hourigan.
I am not sure what your sources are about the "apparent" RPF implications into the 6 April 1994 plane shooting down. I suggest that we wait for the outcome of proceedings such as the investigation that the Government of Rwanda -contrary to your statement- did carry out (http://allafrica.com/stories/200905080832.html) or even the so-called 'Brugiere Case'
As for investigations against the RPF, I will let the ICTR prosecutor himself answer your comment: "The suggestion that no investigations or prosecutions have been conducted against RPF members is not borne out. The essence of the struggle against impunity is to ensure accountability, wherever it can be delivered, provided it is done effectively. It is my strong belief that the (RPF) prosecution of cases of crimes committed by its members have a potentially greater impact on national reconciliation if conducted effectively and in accordance with fair trial procedures by the Rwandan authorities themselves. The decision whether to indict will be based solely on the availability of credible evidence and on the law and not on extraneous considerations or feelings of maintaining "balancing acts" by indicting "all sides" to the Rwandan armed conflict."
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocideIn Rwanda, there was indeed acts of genocide. No one denies that even the now-in-vogue so called genocide deniers a pseudonyme fabricated by RPF propagandists.What you all seem ignore is that defending the fact that the Hutu Governement did not plan or conspire to kill civilian prior the terrorist act of April 6, 1994 that cost the lives of two elected Head of State (a terrorist act that up to date went uninvestigated and the culprits unprosecuted apparently because RPF was implicated) does not mean denying that the genocide took place in Rwanda.If the the UN tribunal failed to find any single evidence for prior planning by the Hutu Government, then why should I believe that you have the the right to force me to believe in your lie propaganda? We do not live un a jungle and we all have the obligation to abide with the rule of law no matter how unpleasant it may be.
Let me be clear. The genocide took place in Rwanda and there is no way anyone may deny or hide it. If the Hutu Government did not plan/conspire to commit the genocide who then may have done so? Why are RPF propagandist afraid to make this noble request? Isn’t wise to investigat the other warring side? Of coures one may argue that this a nonsens because the darling of Africa Kagame-RPF RPF (who stopped the genocide) and Museveni-NRA (who sponsored Kagame) could into fire….Don’t you see that the actual version of the Rwandan genocide is suspicious? Obviously, everybody knows the answer but prefers to keep silent....
- Yolande Mukagasana, survivor of the genocide, November 18, 2009I can share the disappointment expressed by the author of the article with regard to the potential consequences of the decision. I agree that in such a situation, the facts and evidence cannot be seen in the same light as one would in a normal criminal case nor can one simply apply typical rules of law that were not designed for such situations to be applicable. That is why I like these questions:
How much consideration was given to the assessment of the impact on peace and reconciliation that the Tribunal is meant to serve?
How locally relevant are the decisions of a transitional judicial body that applies rules and processes developed to address fundamentally different realities than that of a genocide?
Most importantly, what are the implications of Mr. Z’s release for the very concept of Genocide Planning?Cheers!
Charles
Bagosora was found guilty of Genocide. The criminalization of a stand-alone crime of conspiracy to commit genocide, has no real significance on the definition of the crime of Genocide.
See also Musema and Akayezu cases
At least, readers of this article know to which camp you belong to! You are doing exactly what the article is pointing out, what all genocide deniers do... you can't miss this opportunity to propagate your revisionist views... It is a matter of survival for you as the crime that you are desperateraly trying to hide is the biggest ever : GENOCIDE! There is no time-limit for justice !! We will never give up! NEVER, EVER!
The whole (sad) point is that the ICTR does not receive individual complaints. That is what Yolande Mukagasana (Genocide survivor cited in the article) regrets when she writes: "a justice which refuses to accept us, the victims, as legitimate civil complainants in the proceedings but only as simple witnesses. Our interests are represented by a prosecutor whom we had no hand in choosing, while the killers of our loved ones have at their disposal several lawyers of their choice. " http://www.fairtrialsforrwanda.org/english/a-negationist-justice,015.html
This also helps understanding why, as you note: "the ICTR Chamber was not satisfied that the Prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the four Accused conspired".
There is a difference between what actually happened and what a Prosecutor managed to "prove beyond reasonable doubt", especially under these circumstances.
Note that the chamber's decisions do not by any means put in question the Genocide itself. Indeed, the Genocide of the Tutsi was the only genocide to be recognized both at the political level (UNSC Res 955) and at the judicial level "Prosecutor vs Edouard Karemera".
Bagosora and Z's cases only contribute to fueling the genocide deniers' rhetorical campaign and inflicting more pain to the genocide survivors.
Your comment about Kagame and Museveni is, I am afraid, unrelated to the article you are commenting on.
Please note that no one in the RPF circle has ever tried to challenge this thesis. The evidence is simply overwhelming. In case you want to discuss this writing with me please send me an email at guillaume_murere@yahoo.ca